Mark Lane vs Vincent Bugliosi

[RICLAND]

Just when I think certain members of this group have struck bottom, one
of them posts something so preposterous, so out-of-kilter, so surreal I
can only wonder who these Lone Assassin People truly are.

I'm talking about the poster who wrote Vincent Bugliosi would slam dunk
Mark Lane in a mock Lee Harvey Oswald trial.

Is such manifold ignorance possible?

Vincent Bugliosi is a graduate of Hollywood High School, a high school
that has given America some of hugest egos of all time. Wherever
graduates of Hollywood High go their monstrous egos proceed them.

From there Bugliosi went on the public dole (L.A. Deputy Prosecutor)
where he remained until hitting the Trifecta -- big-shot celebrity law
case, book deal, movie deal. And that's Bugliosi in a nutshell -- an
overblown ego with a law degree.

There's nothing else to Bugliosi, nothing else in his resume of note. He
didn't leave the DA's office and distinguish himself in the private
sector (law). For the past 35 years he's done nothing but party with the
money he earned from the Trifecta mentioned above.

Mark Lane, on the other hand, while still in his 20s saw his mission in
life as doing everything he could do to make the world a better place.

Mark Lane was one of the first Freedom Riders, white kids who risked
violence and death riding integrated buses into the deep South. Then
returning to New York, he busted up the Democratic Machine's
strangle-hold on Spanish Harlem by winning its district seat then
turning it over to a local Latino which marked the first time a Latino
from Spanish Harlem was ever elected.

Then came Lane's work with the Kennedys where he further dismantled
machine politics in New York thereby solidifying Kennedy's NYC political
base. After this, the assassination and his life-long mission to tell
America the truth about it.

My point here is that Lane's life-long dedication to public service
speaks to the character of the man. And please note, that when I use the
term "public service" I'm not referring to the glib Bugliosi version of
it -- "I was a Los Angeles Deputy Prosecutor -- I'm talking about
someone who puts his ass on the line to effect real change.

And lest we make the error of thinking Lane's lawyering skills are
somehow diminished because of dedication to making the world a better
place, consider his brilliant representation of Liberty Lobby on appeal
against E. Howard Hunt's $650,000 defamation suit award.

This case was so much more complex than Bugliosi's simpleton Charlie
Manson's impossible-to-lose-case as night is to day.

Mark Lane took on the entire U.S. government and won. He cross-examined
witnesses like former CIA director Jesse Helms and so skillfully picked
theie brains -- the CIA's involvement in the Kennedy assassination was
finally laid bare.

He performed a lobotomy on Howard Hunt, so much so that when he was
finished with the lying murderer Hunt's defamation suit was not only
shattered into a thousand pieces and cast to the wind, but
incontrovertible that he was the bagman for Operation 40, the CIA's
contract assassination team, was now a matter of public record.

As I wrote in another post, Bugliosi is little more than a cop with a
law degree. He's the kind of pig-headed prosecutor who when shown DNA
that proves it was impossible for someone he sent to jail for life to
have committed the crime, would still insist the person is "Guilty as sin!"

Vincent Bugliosi is not a great man. We don't erect statures and name
buildings after men like Bugliosi. We don't say when they die they left
the world a better place.

Mark Lane, on the other hand, is a great man by any standard. Not a rock
star like, Bugsy, no. But a man who when he dies will surely leave the
world a better place.

ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb

[David Von Pein]

God, what a kook.

Give us just ONE example of Vince B. skewing the truth, in ANY case he
ever was involved in. Lane's skewed gobs of stuff re. the JFK case,
however.

Do you even KNOW about Mark Lane's arm-twisting of Helen Markham?

Do you even know about the multiple instances of lies and/or
misrepresentations in his first JFK book/movie?

Or did you just ignore those posts when I made those things clear?

God, what a kook.

Another really good source book to show what a creep Mark Lane is/was
is this one.....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/83b9597d7b154bc3

[David Von Pein]

Mr. Belin's attack on Mark Lane reaches its spectacular zenith late in
this publication, as Belin tells his readers of Mr. Lane's July 1966
letter to Belin, affording Belin an on-camera opportunity to rebut the
anti-WC claims made in Lane's soon-to-be-released film, "Rush To
Judgment".

Lane tried to ignore Belin's correspondence accepting this unique
offer, but Mr. Belin persisted, writing a total of ten letters saying
he was willing to take Lane up on his offer to rebut the film on
camera.

To get the full (outstanding) effect of this "Lane vs. Belin" episode
from 1966, you must read pages 470 to 473 of this book. It's fabulous
stuff, with Belin calling Lane's bluff and exposing Lane for the fraud
he has proven to be.

After calling Belin a "bit player" in the grand scheme of the Warren
Commission and its associated counsel members, here's a portion of
what
Belin wrote back to Lane......

"True to form, you tried to hide from the person who could best
demolish your fabricated case. .... Once again I challenge you, Mark
Lane, to thirty minutes on film -- that is all I need to demolish your
manufactured case." -- David Belin; 12/23/66

I love it! A tip of my cap goes to David Belin for the above salvo
dished up toward Mr. Lane. I was so thrilled with pages 470 through
473, I've already re-read those pages multiple times. :)

[aeffects]

ROFLMFAO..... when it comes to the WCR and the volumes, there hasn't
been one person (with balls) to face off aganist Mark Lane, PERIOD!
Despite restrictions those that whom did debate him imposed. And Lane
STILL kicked there ass....Why do you think WCR supporters dusted off
Gerry Spence....?

Belin is a FirstClass MAROON, not to mention, a coward!

[RICLAND]

You seem to get more ridiculous with each post, David. The above link is
one of your own book reviews not a credible source.

The Mark Lane cross-examination of E. Howard Hunt was one of the most
brilliant cross-examinations extant. It made Hunt admit he was lying
when he said he wasn't in Dallas on Nov. 21, 1963 (day before
assassination) something he denied before the HSCA, in public, and every
other venue for 20 years.

But the really amazing thing about this case is Lane had it won before
he stepped into the courtroom.

Lane had taken a lengthy deposition from Hunt then spent weeks
researching it for the answers he needed. Then the day of Hunt's
cross-examination, he let Hunt spin his web of lies until Hunt had dug
his own grave at which time Lane simply rolled him in.

No Bugliosi showboating. No Bugliosi histrionics. Just a masterly
exhibition of how to get a witness to cook his own goose.

Bugliosi accomplished nothing with his cross-examination of Dr. Cyril
Wecht save to insult the intelligence of everyone in the jury. And
that's because Bugliosi didn't do his homework. If eight Parkland
doctors disagreed with Wecht, Bugliosi should have had their reasoning
down cold and then used it to take Wecht apart.

But he didn't have it down cold so what he did instead was showboat.

Good lawyers let the evidence win the case the way Lane does.

Bad lawyers harry, harass, badger, and showboat the way Bugliosi does.

[Martin Shackelford]

Bugliosi is a far more serious writer than Gerald Posner was, and like it or
not, we are going to have to respond intelligently to his book when it
becomes available.
Underestimating him, or attempting to smear him, doesn't impress anyone
except the already biased.

Martin

"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:YMKdnavUXcOTKZDb...@comcast.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

Belin's propaganda pieces were less impressive even than Posner's.

Martin

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175307273....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

Bugliosi had an advantage in the TV trial in that defense attorney Gerry
Spence did a lousy job.

Martin

"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message

news:hPGdnYM5KoP1VpDb...@comcast.com...

[RICLAND]

Bugliosi was unprepared for the LHO mock trail. He couldn't challenge
Dr. Cyril Wecht's science so he did what logicians call an "Appeal to
Authority" which is a fallacy:

"Are you saying, Dr. Wecht, the eight doctors at Parkland didn't know
what they were talking about?"

I mean, honestly, David, does that kind of logic impress you?

It's a dumb lawyer trick meant to appeal to a dumb jury. It's a tactic
that says I don't have the intellect to challenge you on the facts, so
I'll badger you.

Bugliosi's performance at the mock trial was an embarrassment. I was
shocked. All my life I had heard what a great attorney he was and then
to see him do his schlock lawyer stickola instead of the great lawyering
I had always believed him capable was almost too painful for me to bear.

Then when he made his feeble attempt to discuss the head shot with Wecht
he goes nowhere with it other than to repeat what Wecht was saying.

He was trying to catch Wecht in a slip of the tongue like he no doubt
easily did when he was an L.A. prosecutor trying jaywalkers and pot
smokers. It was clear he never had a witness of Wecht's caliber in front
of him before.

[RICLAND]

Martin Shackelford wrote:
> Bugliosi had an advantage in the TV trial in that defense attorney Gerry
> Spence did a lousy job.

Bugliosi was unprepared for the LHO mock trail. He couldn't challenge
Dr. Cyril Wecht's science so he did what logicians call an "Appeal to
Authority" which is a fallacy:

"Are you saying, Dr. Wecht, the eight doctors at Parkland didn't know
what they were talking about?"

I mean, honestly, does that kind of logic impress you?

It's a dumb lawyer trick meant to appeal to a dumb jury. It's a tactic
that says I don't have the intellect to challenge you on the facts, so
I'll badger you.

Bugliosi's performance at the mock trial was an embarrassment. I was
shocked. All my life I had heard what a great attorney he was and then
to see him do his schlock lawyer stickola instead of the great lawyering
I had always believed him capable was almost too painful for me to bear.

Then when he made his feeble attempt to discuss the head shot with Wecht
he goes nowhere with it other than to repeat what Wecht was saying.

He was trying to catch Wecht in a slip of the tongue like he no doubt
easily did when he was an L.A. prosecutor trying jaywalkers and pot
smokers. It was clear he never had a witness of Wecht's caliber in front
of him before.

ricland

[Ben Holmes]

In article <6GmPh.10657$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>, Martin Shackelford
says...

>
>Bugliosi is a far more serious writer than Gerald Posner was, and like it or
>not, we are going to have to respond intelligently to his book when it
>becomes available.

Twill be easy to do. Bugliosi is a lawyer - he's argued *both* sides.

All that's needed is the evidence.

[eca...@tx.rr.com]

Ric just when I thought you could say
nothing any nUTtiEr you come with this
gem about "isolate your ONE best single
piece of evidence"... (Forget the
*pattern* sez Ric, I want you to prove
how ONE piece of evidence proves up
your case..) And oh btw, don't ask me
to do the same sez the scholarly Ricster..

You're beginning to make even
Photo retouching expert" Davie
Boy Healy look good..

EARTH to RICLAND:
Even the infamous Jack Ruby
photo would not have done the trick
when ISOLATED as you wish to do..
It's the evidence *pattern*
that provides clear and convincing
persuasion Ric.

In a nutshell as you demand:

**********
We have an evidence
*pattern*
You don't.
And that's the
DIFFERENCE.
**********

Shall I demonstrate even further by asking
you to present the strongest evidence you
have that supports this absurd hypothesis
from the master of completely unresearched,
unsupported, downright steWpiT premises?
RIC ON:----------
The more I study this case, the more I
discover there's not one clean piece of
evidence indicating Lee Harvey Oswald is
the lone assassin."
RIC OFF----------
Just one Ric.
Make it your strongest.
Let's make or break this case on that.
Ric, which one is it, please?

Hopefully you now understand Ric.. One
isolated piece of evidence will almost
never make or break a case.. An exception
might be an extraordinary circumstance
whereby a suspect accused of a murder was
able to demonstrate he was in prison at
the time.. But even that prison date,
like the Ruby photo, would have to then be
authenticated. But you do get credit for
recycling possibly the oldest stewpiT
line of questioning in JFK research..
My God Ric..
Where have you been? This sophomoric line
of dumb (Your "best 1 piece of evidence")
questioning has been regurgitated over and
over and over.. The "isolate ONE" gadget
doesn't fly as a premise to convince anyone
of any point..
Think *pattern* Ric.

************************************
(Forget the *pattern* sez Ric, I want
you to prove how ONE piece of evidence
proves up your case..) And oh btw,
don't ask me to do the same mandates
the scholarly Ricster..
************************************

Carry on Mr "Out-of-the-Box" thinker..

MR ;~D 1015Mar3107

[aeffects]

Ed Cage,

Your not even cute anymore.... why not Watch and Listen, you're making
a damn fool out of yourself, daily! Believe it, stumps your age can
and DO learn new tricks. Give it a chance, eh? Your not even a GOOD
much let alone, a RABID Lone Nutter. However, you do well with
jockstraps.

How is the Fading Away project doing? Any hope for progress this side
of 2025?

Have a nice weekend Ed. Remember Sunday School at ten AM

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Belin's propaganda pieces were less impressive even than Posner's." <<<

Martin,

Would that include the portions of Mr. Belin's '73 book where he shows
up Mr. Lane for the coward and distortion artist he is/was? Was that
merely "propaganda" too, Marty?

BTW, I hadn't previously mentioned Lane's total misrepresentation of
the "paraffin test" matter. I'd forgotten about that neat little
twisting of the facts that Lane engaged in. I re-watched Lane's "RTJ"
film last night, which reminded me of Lane's total distortion of the
WC's conclusion with respect to the paraffin test.

In fact, Lane starts his film off with the paraffin distortion,
insisting that the WC's "totally unreliable" conclusion re. a paraffin
test was unfair (and, hence, untrue). To get the full scope of Lane's
distortion re. the paraffin matter you need to read Belin's excellent
1973 book ("YOU ARE THE JURY"), plus you'll need to watch Lane's
distortion of fact in action via his '67 film ("RUSH TO JUDGMENT").

Then you can make up your own mind as to whether Mr. Lane was only
wanting to tell the whole unvarnished truth or not.

[RICLAND]

Ed is hopeless.

And he just doesn't get this forum thing.

He has the habit of asking questions and posting content that addresses
topics from threads started a week earlier.

Nobody remembers what he's talking about.

They read his post and say to themselves, "What time zone is this guy
posting from -- the Twilight Zone?"

[Anthony Marsh]

David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "Belin's propaganda pieces were less impressive even than Posner's." <<<
>
> Martin,
>
> Would that include the portions of Mr. Belin's '73 book where he shows
> up Mr. Lane for the coward and distortion artist he is/was? Was that
> merely "propaganda" too, Marty?
>
> BTW, I hadn't previously mentioned Lane's total misrepresentation of
> the "paraffin test" matter. I'd forgotten about that neat little
> twisting of the facts that Lane engaged in. I re-watched Lane's "RTJ"
> film last night, which reminded me of Lane's total distortion of the
> WC's conclusion with respect to the paraffin test.
>

Even die-hard WC defenders now admit that the paraffin tests were
unreliable and inconclusive.

[eca...@tx.rr.com]

My God Ric..
Where have you been? This sophomoric line

of "post your 1 best piece of evidence"

questioning has been regurgitated over and
over and over.. The "isolate ONE" gadget
doesn't fly as a premise to convince anyone
of any point..
Think *pattern* Ric.

Ric, in a nutshell:
**********************************
Even the infamous Ruby photo would
not have nailed Ruby by itself.
A supporting evidence *pattern*
is required.
**********************************

It would be like me asking you to
present YOUR ONE best piece of
evidence that Oswald didn't do it.

Carry on Mr "Out-of-the-Box" thinker..

MR ;~D 1715Mar3107

> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Anthony Marsh]

RICLAND wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> God, what a kook.
>>
>> Give us just ONE example of Vince B. skewing the truth, in ANY case he
>> ever was involved in. Lane's skewed gobs of stuff re. the JFK case,
>> however.
>>
>> Do you even KNOW about Mark Lane's arm-twisting of Helen Markham?
>>
>> Do you even know about the multiple instances of lies and/or
>> misrepresentations in his first JFK book/movie?
>>
>> Or did you just ignore those posts when I made those things clear?
>>
>> God, what a kook.
>>
>> Another really good source book to show what a creep Mark Lane is/was
>> is this one.....
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/83b9597d7b154bc3
>>
>
>
> You seem to get more ridiculous with each post, David. The above link is
> one of your own book reviews not a credible source.
>
> The Mark Lane cross-examination of E. Howard Hunt was one of the most
> brilliant cross-examinations extant. It made Hunt admit he was lying
> when he said he wasn't in Dallas on Nov. 21, 1963 (day before
> assassination) something he denied before the HSCA, in public, and every
> other venue for 20 years.
>

I can not rely on the Rolling Stone article, but supposedly Hunt finally
admitted that he had been lying all along.

[Anthony Marsh]

David Von Pein wrote:
> God, what a kook.
>
> Give us just ONE example of Vince B. skewing the truth, in ANY case he
> ever was involved in. Lane's skewed gobs of stuff re. the JFK case,
> however.
>

When he repeats on page 732 the WC defender fiction that modern firearms
never emit any smoke.

[Martin Shackelford]

Don't waste your time, David.
I've pointed out Lane's carelessness and inaccuracies since the 1970s, when
I was appalled at some of the statements he made in lectures I attended. He
seemed frozen in time, disregarding almost all findings since the mid-1960s.
In some respects, he and Posner are the two sides of the same coin, though I
would have to say that Lane did far more original research than Posner did.

Martin

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1175359689.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

[aeffects]

On Apr 1, 1:12 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Don't waste your time, David.
> I've pointed out Lane's carelessness and inaccuracies since the 1970s, when
> I was appalled at some of the statements he made in lectures I attended. He
> seemed frozen in time, disregarding almost all findings since the mid-1960s.
> In some respects, he and Posner are the two sides of the same coin, though I
> would have to say that Lane did far more original research than Posner did.

frozen in time? Martin, shy of Team Judyth, have you written anyting
that WASN'T frozen in time... *You* are mysteriously sounding like
those *appalling* Lone Nutter's, Martin....

Are you telling us Mark Lane was full of it? And YOU were appalled at
some of his lecture statements? LMFAO! I doubt Lane will lose much
sleep knowing Martin was appalled at some statements he heard, YEARS
ago.....

You forget what's appalling Martin: the muder of a unarmed man, shot
in the back -by- fucking cowards, left to die in his wife's lap -- I
doubt many CTer's feel much for your apparent sensativities.... your
old hat dude, time to move over with the other dinasours...

> Martin
>
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:1175359689.1...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Are you telling us Mark Lane was full of it?" <<<

Can there be any doubt of the fact that Lane was/is "full of it"?
(Martin's personal opinion notwithstanding.)

Lane's "full of it" status is a proven FACT...documented ON FILM for
all time via his movie "RTJ".

Have you ever seen that film, David H.? The misrepresentations flow
like a river throughout. And I'm not talking about purely-subjective
stuff either. I'm talking about things that were shown to be rock-
solid FACTS by the time Lane made that film in '67, but Mr. Lane
treated these facts as if they were still in doubt....with the
Lovelady business being the one I like to point out the most to prove
Lane's blatant dishonesty.

[Martin Shackelford]

I see that you've succumbed to the silly attack tactics Ben adopts, David.
For a while it appeared that you might be wiser than to make slimy Lone
Nutter implications. I doubt that you know much at all about my research
contributions--you show no sign of it here.
In addition, you yourself ally with the Lone Nutters by joining by
implication the vicious assaults on Judyth Baker.
Get a clue.

Martin

"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175441658....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

[aeffects]

Let me take you, David VonPein on what I'm sure, for you, is a extreme
leap of faith: none, NONE of us would be here bickering over the 43+
year old murder of President John Francis Kennedy -- if, If, *IF* the
Warren Commission chose to do a REAL investigation rather than
develope a piece of *propoganda* they and governmental bodies felt
palitable for taste-direction of the American citizenry...

Film-Television producers, investigators the likes of Mark Lane,
Oliver Stone, etal., should not be the brunt of THE ever growing,
demonstrable problem; once a lie is out in the public, no, NO amount
of wishing, hoping, shucking and jiving will quiet that lie, nor rid
the public of same LIE...

The messanger isn't the problem, the LIE is! Further that: the COVERUP
(more lies) of botched assassination investigation!

Gott'a tell you champ, the real question around here (in my
estimastion) is: why do Lone Nutters perpetuate the LIE: NO conspiracy
is the assassination-death of President John Francis Kennedy in
Dallas, Texas Nov 22nd 1963?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <od2Qh.1327$Q23...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>, Martin Shackelford
says...

>
>I see that you've succumbed to the silly attack tactics Ben adopts,

Which consist of merely pointing out that you employ the SAME tactics that most
LNT'ers do.

When the truth begins to hurt you - perhaps you need to re-examine your
position.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

The messenger certainly is part of the problem if he is
misrepresenting the facts (lying)!

>
> Gott'a tell you champ, the real question around here (in my
> estimastion) is: why do Lone Nutters perpetuate the LIE: NO conspiracy
> is the assassination-death of President John Francis Kennedy in
> Dallas, Texas Nov 22nd 1963?

Good Lord!

It's John FITZGERALD Kennedy.

MOST EVERYONE KNOWS THAT! YOU CERTAINLY SHOULD!

FRANCIS is Robert Kennedy's middle name.

And we should rely on you, just another messenger, for any facts?

LMAO!

[aeffects]

On Apr 2, 12:25 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> I see that you've succumbed to the silly attack tactics Ben adopts, David.
> For a while it appeared that you might be wiser than to make slimy Lone
> Nutter implications. I doubt that you know much at all about my research
> contributions--you show no sign of it here.
> In addition, you yourself ally with the Lone Nutters by joining by
> implication the vicious assaults on Judyth Baker.
> Get a clue.

Martin,

I'm well aware of your contributions, you've been at this for a
longtime, developed new lines of inquiry, even. It's going no where,
Martin.... Considering the overall picture: nothing, NOTHING
changes....

As each day passes, the Lone Nutter's look even MORE ridiculous (if
thats possible). sSince Posner they've prayed for a JEHoover like
incarnation, someone, ANYONE to take them to the next level in the
lie.... reaffirming the WCR, hoping amongst all hope a NEW book will
erase the conspiracy element of JFK's death from the American public
psyche.... It's a Nutter wetdream...

It's not the Ben's, Vince's, Walt's, Laz's all the Cter's here, John
McA's, Ken Rahn's, even that moron cddraftsman....you or me's of the
world. CTer's attack the LIE, Lone Nutters perpetuate the LIE -- it
continues to fester -- Lurkers (and they're out there) say it's so!

You've been around since JFK's assassination, tell me: you as a CTer,
what were/are the national/international benefits in living with JFK's
assassination-coverup since 1964?

Here's my take: short of Wall Street, there are none!

David

> Martin
>
> "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

[David Von Pein]

>>> "John Francis Kennedy..." <<<

<place humorous sarcasm here:______>

;)

>>> "Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, etal., should not be the brunt of THE ever growing, demonstrable problem." <<<

Even when those people deliberately distort the KNOWN FACTS of the
case, huh?

Geesh.

>>> "The messanger isn't the problem, the LIE is!" <<<

No...the real problem (as Bud has correctly stated many times in the
past) is --- YOU KOOKS.

THAT'S the biggest problem right there..."champ". ;)

>>> "...assassination-death of President John Francis Kennedy..." <<<

Are you doing performing this middle-name error thing on purpose now?

;)

[aeffects]

On Apr 2, 10:53 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "John Francis Kennedy..." <<<
>
> <place humorous sarcasm here:______>
>
> ;)
>
> >>> "Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, etal., should not be the brunt of THE ever growing, demonstrable problem." <<<
>
> Even when those people deliberately distort the KNOWN FACTS of the
> case, huh?

chalk it up to Warren Commission general incompetency and their
investigators-attornies. The WC published shit, you leave grist for
the mill David, then you piss and moan about it?

Few years back someone commented: "...Nutter's need this *conspiracy*
argument more than the CTer's do..." I'm prone to agree... I'll go
further, Nuuter's are obsessed with LHO-SBT

> Geesh.

no geesh about it, you Nutter's have been fucking up for the past 43
years

>
> >>> "The messanger isn't the problem, the LIE is!" <<<
>
> No...the real problem (as Bud has correctly stated many times in the
> past) is --- YOU KOOKS.

screw Dudster, he's a newbie who doesn't know better....your wishing
and a hoping won't change a thing, David -- The lie being the WCR sins
of omission and sins of COMMISSION -- what's sad is the blanket
endorsement by the uniformed, the Lone Nutter's...

>
> THAT'S the biggest problem right there..."champ". ;)
>
> >>> "...assassination-death of President John Francis Kennedy..." <<<
>
> Are you doing performing this middle-name error thing on purpose now?

you are awake, so Honey-Fitz will forgive me -- what-the-hell, I'm
Irish I know he'll deal with it

> ;)

[Todd W. Vaughan]

David,

I suspect he will next call Lee Harvey Oswald Lee HENRY Oswald and
claim the middle name variation porves a second Oswald.

Of course he won't "get" that, as we're now finding out how very
limited his knowledge of the case is.

Todd

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Few years back someone commented: "...Nutters need this *conspiracy* argument more than the CTers do..." I'm prone to agree... I'll go further, Nutters are obsessed with LHO-SBT." <<< [<---needless apostrophes removed by DVP]

<chuckle>

In typical kook tradition, a CTer turns everything upside-down. ;)

>>> "You Nutters have been fucking up for the past 43 years." <<<

With the main "fuck up" being: Giving you CT-Kooks Internet access.

[aeffects]

LMFAO, makes no difference what I know, or think I know -- all your
moaning, panting and stroking re the WCR won't change a thing,
Todd.... The WCR a disgrace to American sensibilites.... for the past
43 years there hadsn't been one Warren Commission supporter, ANYWHERE
capable of debating Mark Lane.

Whose the best you Nutter's have... you?

> Todd

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I suspect he will next call Lee Harvey Oswald Lee HENRY Oswald and claim the middle name variation proves a second Oswald." <<<

<grin>

Or Lee "HAROLD" Oswald (per Bob Huffaker's KRLD boo-boo). ;)

Do you know Mr. Huffaker, Todd? I've talked with him by e-mail several
times. He's about 70 or 71 now. Some really interesting stories from
him too. He covered the whole weekend's events back in '63 for KRLD-
Radio/TV (CBS-TV), and he told me he has no doubt whatsoever that
Oswald acted alone, and he saw no signs of "conspiracy" throughout
that weekend in '63 as he was covering the events as they were
happening (including broadcasting live over CBS-TV as Oswald was shot
by Ruby...which is when he mistakenly said over the air: "Lee Harold
Oswald has been shot!"). ;)

He has taken a beating because of that error ever since.

Bob H. provided me with some interesting info about the
supposedly-"live" (but actually re-created) KBOX-Radio footage. I was
fooled by that KBOX "fake" broadcast, which included the oft-heard
portion: "Something has happened in the motorcade route....something's
wrong here; something's terribly wrong....I can see Mrs. Kennedy's
pink suit; there's a Secret Service man spread-eagle over the top of
the car...".

Every bit of that was "re-created" in a studio after 11/22.

I suppose such a "fake" broadcast by a local radio station only serves
to throw more fuel on the CTers' "conspiracy fire", in a sense....in
that they can argue: "See what can be done to fool the gullible
public?"

~wink~

That KBOX coverage fooled me for years...I'll tell ya that. But when
re-listening to it, the loud siren sounds do seem a bit too
"close" (i.e., "staged")...which is exactly what they were.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Blah, blah, blah...Mark Lane.

Is this the BEST you can do?

> Whose the best you Nutter's have... you?

You don't know yet?

Turtle.

>
>
>
> > Todd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[tomnln]

toad is a LIAR, & a Whore>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

3rd feature from the top.

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175546384.9...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[tomnln]

It's you KOOK-SUCKERS who refuse to address evidence/testimony.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1175542187.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

When you say something that makes sense, I may.

Martin

"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:eur36...@drn.newsguy.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

I don't agree that the case is going nowhere. Many researchers are going
through the mountain of newly released documents, while others (like John
Armstrong) have done important independent interviews of witnesses. I think
the possibilities have narrowed considerably since Esquire catalogued dozens
of theories in 1966. We are down to a handful now, and the answer may be
some combination of those. The lie continues to crumble. I'm seeing the
pieces coming together all the time--bits in books, journal articles, etc.
Texas was involved, and probably New Orleans--it wasn't a CIA plot, though
some CIA folk seem to have been recruited to assist, thus the CIA cover-up.
As such things usually are, it was about power, and about money--oil, war
profiteering, etc. (some things never change, it seems).
We spend to much time reading nonsense by the Lone Nutters--and by red
herring CT posters. That's where "nothing changes."

Martin

"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1175524221.6...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

[aeffects]

On Apr 3, 1:03 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I don't agree that the case is going nowhere. Many researchers are going
> through the mountain of newly released documents, while others (like John
> Armstrong) have done important independent interviews of witnesses. I think
> the possibilities have narrowed considerably since Esquire catalogued dozens
> of theories in 1966. We are down to a handful now, and the answer may be
> some combination of those. The lie continues to crumble. I'm seeing the
> pieces coming together all the time--bits in books, journal articles, etc.
> Texas was involved, and probably New Orleans--it wasn't a CIA plot, though
> some CIA folk seem to have been recruited to assist, thus the CIA cover-up.
> As such things usually are, it was about power, and about money--oil, war
> profiteering, etc. (some things never change, it seems).
> We spend to much time reading nonsense by the Lone Nutters--and by red
> herring CT posters. That's where "nothing changes."

in short you're convinced the battle is being fought on 3 fronts: 1]
*true* CT front (whatever the hell that is - I prefer to call it
preservers of modern-day, Dealey Plaza history 2] Lone Nut SBT/LHO/
Lone Gunman 3]CT nonsense, (which covers all new advances, on ALL
echnological fronts)? That about sum up the logjam, the 43+ years of
dealings with the perils of Pauline...

You don't need another freight car or two of documents to confirm a
conspiracy exist[ed/s], Martin... Lone Neuter's love it when more
documents are released. If CTer's can't do it now with what's
available, they can NEVER do it. Need only a few good writers and a
good on-camera personality....

Let legal-beagle prosecutors figure out the 'whodunit' rest...

[Ben Holmes]

In article <mLnQh.13341$Um6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>, Martin
Shackelford says...

>
>When you say something that makes sense, I may.
>
>Martin

Sorry Martin... my comments about you don't have to make "sense", they merely
need to be accurate.

Any time you wish to *QUOTE* me, then cite the evidence that makes my statement
incorrect, feel free to do so.

In the meantime, I'll remind newcomers that you (Tony too...) treat the
evidence, and use tactics that are identical to LNT'ers.

[Martin Shackelford]

Your claim that I consider "all new advances" as "CT nonsense" is
ridiculous, which you know very well.
Why you think that such specious claims help your arguments is beyond me.
I've never made the silly claim that "freight cars" full of evidence are
needed to prove a conspiracy.
A conspiracy was proven, in its essentials, a long time ago. When I have
said it wasn't? I've repeatedly noted that the Lone Nut thesis is destroyed
by the simple fact that too many people knew about the assassination in
advance--something the LNers are always eager to "refute."
There is nothing wrong, however, which trying to nail down as many of the
details as possible.
You fail to understand that not everyone has to follow the same lines of
research--in fact, that would be a foolish way to proceed.
I'm not quite sure what you are recommending here, unless perhaps a
lock-step uniformity, and putting forth a spokesperson who would supposedly
speak for all CTers--good luck with that one. .

Martin

"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1175617157.7...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

Your usual load of crap. No wonder you have no impact.

Martin

"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message

news:euusl...@drn.newsguy.com...

[aeffects]

Martin -- Earth to Martin

On Apr 3, 11:54 pm, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Your claim that I consider "all new advances" as "CT nonsense" is
> ridiculous, which you know very well.
> Why you think that such specious claims help your arguments is beyond me.
> I've never made the silly claim that "freight cars" full of evidence are
> needed to prove a conspiracy.

settle down, breath deeply...

> A conspiracy was proven, in its essentials, a long time ago. When I have
> said it wasn't? I've repeatedly noted that the Lone Nut thesis is destroyed
> by the simple fact that too many people knew about the assassination in
> advance--something the LNers are always eager to "refute."

refute *with* WHAT? Brennan's testimony - Bugliosi' pre-publication
trial balloons, LMFAO? All you'll get on either board is the Nutter
mantra; LHO/SBT

> There is nothing wrong, however, which trying to nail down as many of the
> details as possible.
> You fail to understand that not everyone has to follow the same lines of
> research--in fact, that would be a foolish way to proceed.

Not a efficient use of the Internet, right? Some here and on the
*other* board feel that is the 'only' way to proceed, the shotgun
effect? !n whose hands does THAT give advantage too?

> I'm not quite sure what you are recommending here, unless perhaps a
> lock-step uniformity, and putting forth a spokesperson who would supposedly
> speak for all CTers--good luck with that one. .

Spokesperson? Who said spokesperson, Martin -- knock off the selective
snipping, Martin, I said; "...a few good writers and a good in-camera
personality..." that's more of the same old 70's-80's-90's nonsense...
we'be been recently exposed to concerning the History Channel fare/
docu's.

As too LUCK, any kind of luck, other than the KIND of luck the
*alleged* CT cause has had for the past 10 years will do. Some feel
there's enough evidentiary conflict out there to bury the SBT
forever... that could start the house of cards, falling... Does that
frighen CTer's? Why do you think Bugliosi's book is arriving NOW at
this late date...

As for reccommendations for the uninitiated - from this quarter? Cease
reading the WCR/volumes and anything our latter-day-saint, cable talk-
show hopping, book promoting learnered historians have to say about
the subject matter... Read this and the other USNET board,
objectively...ALL you need!

For those with a Conspiracy bent, the situation is ripe, the current
crop of Lone Nutters haven't a clue, they're so steeped in documents
and their own bullshit they don't know their ass from a hole in the
ground, they forgot the QUESTION... as displayed by the PERFECT
example: they can't and WON'T cite the very evidence they believe
supports their contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin
in the death of President John F Kennedy.

Ya think all those that posed for Ken Rahn's camera and website, would
sitdown with me and a cameraperson for a little friendly JFK
assassination chat? You think Bugliosi would do the same, Perhaps even
Mark Lane? Discuss the finer points of the evidence (conflicting or
lack thereof) if you will? Wouldn't that make for a interesting piece
of journalism...eh?

Most of the JFK assassination research old timers are living in their
own dreamworld (which of course is their decesion). Not all, mind you,
but most. Most those are wish'in and a hop'in the next JFK
assassination related answer will come from the next CT/LN genere's
publication...

...by any stretch of the imagination that's called a circle jerk. If
YOU feed it, it becomes so, Martin.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <q3IQh.2818$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Martin Shackelford
says...

>
>Your usual load of crap. No wonder you have no impact.
>
>Martin

Actually, Martin... one's "impact" can be quite accurately judged by the number
of LNT'ers who begin forgetting how to spell your name - and use ad hominem
attacks.

You don't seem to draw *any* LNT'er ire.

I do.

I'll let the lurkers decide what to make of those facts...

And I'll note that once again, you refused to provide any quote of mine, along
with the citation that would make it a "lie".

[Martin Shackelford]

Dream on, Ben.

Martin

"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message

news:ev0oj...@drn.newsguy.com...

[Ben Holmes]

Here's the statements that Martin is running from this time:

Actually, Martin... one's "impact" can be quite accurately judged by the
number of LNT'ers who begin forgetting how to spell your name - and use ad
hominem attacks.

You don't seem to draw *any* LNT'er ire.

I do.

I'll let the lurkers decide what to make of those facts...

And I'll note that once again, you refused to provide any quote of mine,
along with the citation that would make it a "lie".

In article <yR4Rh.2974$5e2...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Martin Shackelford
says...
>
>Dream on, Ben.

It seems that you think that people who provide no facts, and fail to irritate
the LNT'er trolls, are making more of a contribution than those who post the
evidence - inciting the trolls to a frenzy.

Your position isn't even a reasonable one, let alone a defendable one.

[Gil Jesus]

On Mar 31, 6:40 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Give us just ONE example of Vince B. skewing the truth, in ANY case he
> > ever was involved in. Lane's skewed gobs of stuff re. the JFK case,
> > however.
>
> When he repeats on page 732 the WC defender fiction that modern firearms
> never emit any smoke.

Right Mr. Marsh :

Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 - August 1, 1966) is known for
ascending The University of Texas at Austin's 27-story tower on August
1, 1966, and shooting passersby in the city and on the campus below,
after having killed his mother and his wife the night before.

Videotape of that event showed smoke being emitted from Whitman's
rifle. thatwas three years AFTER the murder in Dallas.

[David Von Pein]

Gil,

That's a fair point re. the Whitman/smoke video. I've seen that
footage myself. Point taken.

But we must also remember that Mr. Marsh is talking out his ass when
he says he's read on "page 732" of VB's book that Vince is going to
talk about the smoke issue.

Tony's doing a little bit of pre-release ASSUMING there. He hasn't the
slightest idea what VB is going to say about the "smoke on the knoll"
situation. Tony probably still thinks the book is never coming out at
all.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <1175817453.3...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Gil Jesus
says...

>
>On Mar 31, 6:40 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Give us just ONE example of Vince B. skewing the truth, in ANY case he
>> > ever was involved in. Lane's skewed gobs of stuff re. the JFK case,
>> > however.

Of course, since Bugliosi has argued *both* sides of the JFK case - you'd think
that attempting to find such an example would be easy.

You can't argue that there was a conspiracy in the JFK (and RFK) case, then
write a book saying that there *wasn't*... and still act as if you have
principles.

[David Von Pein]

Vince Bugliosi never has argued in favor of conspiracy in the JFK
case.

For some reason, Ben Holmes is attempting to utilize VB's 1970s-era
GENERALIZED "conspiracy" comments to show that VB was, in some way,
arguing the *JFK* CASE there. He wasn't.

Vince was merely pointing out the public's belief in political
assassination conspiracies IN GENERAL (including JFK's and RFK's).

But VB was in no way "arguing" conspiracy in the JOHN KENNEDY murder
case in that ROBERT KENNEDY example of VB's quotes.

As usual, Holmes is nuts, and has misinterpreted stuff (again).

[aeffects]

On Apr 5, 6:58 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Vince Bugliosi never has argued in favor of conspiracy in the JFK
> case.

can't be much of a attorney if he's never considered the possibility
of conspiracy... How the hell did he build an argument?

> For some reason, Ben Holmes is attempting to utilize VB's 1970s-era
> GENERALIZED "conspiracy" comments to show that VB was, in some way,
> arguing the *JFK* CASE there. He wasn't.
>
> Vince was merely pointing out the public's belief in political
> assassination conspiracies IN GENERAL (including JFK's and RFK's).
>
> But VB was in no way "arguing" conspiracy in the JOHN KENNEDY murder
> case in that ROBERT KENNEDY example of VB's quotes.
>
> As usual, Holmes is nuts, and has misinterpreted stuff (again).

Why is it, you STOOP to this lunacy? Only you can INTERUPT the correct
way. Why do you INSIST your thinking and argument is correct? The
ARROGANT always, ALWAYS fall the hardest...

[David Von Pein]

H-h-huh?????

[aeffects]

On Apr 5, 7:27 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> H-h-huh?????

Engish your second language, perhaps?

[David Von Pein]

And "Conspiracy-ese" is your primary language, Davey H.

[Martin Shackelford]

I've been drawing "LNTer ire" for fourteen years on newsgroups. Don't be
such an ass.
You don't draw ire--you draw ridicule--hardly the same thing.
If lurkers look at the facts, I thnk they'll realize you aren't providing
real ones--like the phony claim that I draw no "LNTer ire." Grasping at
straws, are we?

Martin

"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message

news:ev306...@drn.newsguy.com...

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Hillarious, coming on the heels of your "Only you can INTERUPT the
correct
way.", when you quite obvioulsy should meant to use the word
"INTERPRET".

[Ben Holmes]

In article <OpmRh.3331$5e2....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>, Martin Shackelford
says...
>

>I've been drawing "LNTer ire" for fourteen years on newsgroups. Don't be
>such an ass.

Merely telling the truth, Martin. On *THIS* newsgroup, at THIS point in time,
the trolls ignore you.

>You don't draw ire--you draw ridicule--hardly the same thing.

I said "ire", I meant "ire".

>If lurkers look at the facts, I thnk they'll realize you aren't providing
>real ones

Sure I am... you *never* seem capable of quoting any statement of mine, and then
citing the evidence that makes it false.

--like the phony claim that I draw no "LNTer ire." Grasping at
>straws, are we?

Cite the subject titles that mention you, Martin... let's go back to the
beginning of the year, just to give you a fair chance...

List the mispellings of your name as well...

But you won't.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <1175865380.9...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
Vaughan says...

Looks like Toddy is trying out for the part as a clown ... I thought Bud already
had that one locked down. When you attempt to insult someone for poor spelling
or grammar, you should be careful to check your own.

[Todd W. Vaughan]

On Apr 6, 10:28 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1175865380.960278.305...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.

Ben,

The issue isn't the simple typo of an extra "l' here and there (I make
little typos all the time, and readily admit it!). Rather, it's the
misuse of an entire word!

Funny that a clown like you didn't see that.

Todd

[tomnln]

WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1175875198....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

[Todd W. Vaughan]

On Apr 6, 12:51 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> WHO is toad vaughan?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>

Tomnln,

Many hundreds of times you've laid claim to a desire to discuss
"evidence/testrimony".

You love your "official records", yes?

Well, here's some, so let's discuss it, per your desires.

>From the Warren Commission testimony of Eugene Boone:

QUOTE ON

Mr. BOONE - Well, there is a big cement works out there. We went on
west across Houston Street, and then cut across the grass out there
behind the large cement works there. Some of the bystanders over
there
seemed to think the shots came from up over the railroad in the
freight yards, from over the triple underpass.

So there was some city officer, I don't know who he was, motorcycle
officer had laid his motorcycle down and was running up the
embankment
to get over a little retaining wall that separates the freight yards
there. He went over the wall first, and I was right behind him, going
into the freight yards. We searched out the freight yards. We were
unable to find anything.

Mr. BALL - A good many officers over there searching?

Mr. BOONE - Yes; there were. Most all of the officers--well, all of
the officers in front of the sheriff's office there. There were
others
that I don't recall. There were other officers in the area. Also,
they
all ran in that general direction, over around the depository and
also
down into the freight yards.

Mr. BALL - Any railroad employees around there?

Mr. BOONE - There was one colored boy way on back down in the freight
yards. He had been working on one of the pullmans down there.

Mr. BALL - And didn't you talk to somebody that was also in a tower?

Mr. BOONE - Yes; I did.

Mr. BALL - A man named Bowers?

Mr. BOONE - I don't know what his name was. He was up in the tower
and
I hollered up there to see if he had seen anybody running out there
in
the freight yards, or heard any shots. And he said he didn't hear any
shots, and he hadn't seen anybody racing around out there in the
yard.

Mr. BALL - That was a railroad tower?

Mr. BOONE - Yes; it is situated between the tracks and the school
book
depository. Almost directly west of the building.

QUOTE OFF

Let's discuss Boone's testimony and how it contradicts you claim that
Bowers saw 2 (or 3) men run from the stockade fence after the shots
were fired.

Todd

> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1175875198....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 10:28 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> >> In article <1175865380.960278.305...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Todd
> >> W.
> >> Vaughan says...
>
> >> >On Apr 5, 10:41 pm, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 5, 7:27 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > H-h-huh?????
>
> >> >> Engish your second language, perhaps?
>
> >> >Hillarious, coming on the heels of your "Only you can INTERUPT the
> >> >correct
> >> >way.", when you quite obvioulsy should meant to use the word
> >> >"INTERPRET".
>
> >> Looks like Toddy is trying out for the part as a clown ... I thought Bud
> >> already
> >> had that one locked down. When you attempt to insult someone for poor
> >> spelling
> >> or grammar, you should be careful to check your own.
>
> > Ben,
>
> > The issue isn't the simple typo of an extra "l' here and there (I make
> > little typos all the time, and readily admit it!). Rather, it's the
> > misuse of an entire word!
>
> > Funny that a clown like you didn't see that.
>

> > Todd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[tomnln]

It's Already HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

3rd feature down from the top.

You're a Proven LIAR.

you STILL refuse to address the LIES of officer Baker>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1175878846.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[Todd W. Vaughan]

On Apr 6, 1:45 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> It's Already HERE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
>
> 3rd feature down from the top.
>
> You're a Proven LIAR.

Nope, you're lying. AGAIN.

I checked, and there is nothing regarding Boone's testimony.

What's the matter, Tommy, don't you want to discuss the testimony of
Boone? I thought you loved discussing "evidence/testimony".

>
> you STILL refuse to address the LIES of officer Baker>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
>

> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1175878846.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bud]

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1175865380.9...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
> >
> >On Apr 5, 10:41 pm, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 5, 7:27 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > H-h-huh?????
> >>
> >> Engish your second language, perhaps?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Hillarious, coming on the heels of your "Only you can INTERUPT the
> >correct
> >way.", when you quite obvioulsy should meant to use the word
> >"INTERPRET".
>
> Looks like Toddy is trying out for the part as a clown ... I thought Bud already
> had that one locked down.

I think your "asshole" title is safe.

[aeffects]

I pay for writer's, I make huge writing mistakes -- I aren't one...
you insufferable douche-bag, enjoy Good Friday!

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Ah, but that Fetzer book piece of yours was well written, but by
whom?

" insufferable douche-bag" Gotta give you that one David, made me
chuckle.

>
>
>
> > Funny that a clown like you didn't see that.
>

[tomnln]

HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm

Eat your heart out LIAR.

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1175882430.7...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[Todd W. Vaughan]

On Apr 6, 4:11 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> HERE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
>
> Eat your heart out LIAR.

Again you lie.

I checked that silly site of yours.

There is nothing there regarding Boone's testimony as it relates to
what Lee Bowers saw.

You're nothing but a liar Tomnln, and a very poor one at that.

>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1175882430.7...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[tomnln]

Like I said;

"Eat your heart out LIAR".

 

http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm

 

The Warren Report tells us on page 645:

 

 Speculation:-The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository was identified as a 7.65 Mauser by the man who found it, Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman.

 Commission finding:-Weitzman, the original source of the speculation that the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon. Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range. He had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Manlicher-Carcano. Police laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly identified the weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle.

 

 Pretty simple in and of itself. But as I told you earlier the WR consists of 888 pages of "conclusions" based on 26 Volumes of Testimony and Exhibits. And they were very selective in what they based their conclusions on. As stated above: Weitzman simply made a mistake. 

 

 Volume XXIV Pg. 228 contains Weitzman's actual written statement dated 11/23/63. (This is what he reported.)

  "Yesterday November 22, 1963 I was standing on the corner of Main and Houston, and as the President passed and made his turn going west towards Stemmens, I walked casually around. At this time my partner was behind me and asked me something. I looked back at him and heard 3 shots. I ran in a northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from. Then someone said they thought the shots came from the old Texas Building . I immediately ran to the old Texas Building and started looking inside. At this time Captain Fritz arrived and ordered all of the sixth floor sealed off and searched. I was working with Deputy S. Boone of the Sheriff's Department and helping in the search. We were in the northwest corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted the rifle about the same time. THE RIFLE WAS A 7.65 MAUSER BOLT ACTION EQUIPPED WITH A 4/18 SCOPE, A THICK LEATHER BROWNISH-BLACK SLING ON IT. The rifle was between some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was found was 1:22 pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from the chamber. I then went back to the office after this.

                                     Seymour Weitzman

  (EMPHASIS ADDED)                     (Signature)  

 

 

 1. THIS STATEMENT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM THAT WEITZMAN ONLY HAD A "GLIMPSE" OF THE WEAPON. (Does that  description sound like nothing more than just a "GLIMPSE"?

 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING THAT HE WAS FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A  SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR A WHILE.

 

 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBORATION FOR              WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S                AFFIDAVIT (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What  appeared to be a 7.65 Mauser with a telescopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like the rifle they reportedly found?)

4. FOR MORE CORROBORATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65MAUSERWITHA TELESCOPIC SITE."

5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65 MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF  DEPUTY BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.

         BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to  this rifle as a Mauser that  day?

        BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was a 7.65  Mauser.

       BALL: Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?

       BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it  was, he said that is what it looks like. This Is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting  ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.

      BALL: Thank you.

      THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very helpful.

 

  OMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF   WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!

 

 While we're on the subject of omissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg. 754 of  Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.

   "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of the Depository Building ?"

   "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)

============================================================================

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1175890919.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

[Todd W. Vaughan]

On Apr 6, 4:52 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Like I said;
> "Eat your heart out LIAR".
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
>
> The Warren Report tells us on page 645:
>
> Speculation:-The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository was identified as a 7.65 Mauser by the man who found it, Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman.

Tomnln,

Are you a retard?

I'm asking you to address Boone's testimony as it relates to Lee
Bowers.

But instead, you go off on a tanget regarding Boone's identification
of the rifle.

I think you need some serious mental help.

Todd

>
> > There is nothing there regarding Boone's testimony as it relates to
> > what Lee Bowers saw.

>

> Commission finding:-Weitzman, the original source of the speculation that the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon. Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range. He had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Manlicher-Carcano. Police laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly identified the weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle.
>
> Pretty simple in and of itself. But as I told you earlier the WR consists of 888 pages of "conclusions" based on 26 Volumes of Testimony and Exhibits. And they were very selective in what they based their conclusions on. As stated above: Weitzman simply made a mistake.
>
> Volume XXIV Pg. 228 contains Weitzman's actual written statement dated 11/23/63. (This is what he reported.)
>
> "Yesterday November 22, 1963 I was standing on the corner of Main and Houston, and as the President passed and made his turn going west towards Stemmens, I walked casually around. At this time my partner was behind me and asked me something. I looked back at him and heard 3 shots. I ran in a northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from. Then someone said they thought the shots came from the old Texas Building . I immediately ran to the old Texas Building and started looking inside. At this time Captain Fritz arrived and ordered all of the sixth floor sealed off and searched. I was working with Deputy S. Boone of the Sheriff's Department and helping in the search. We were in the northwest corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted the rifle about the same time. THE RIFLE WAS A 7.65 MAUSER BOLT ACTION EQUIPPED WITH A 4/18 SCOPE, A THICK LEATHER BROWNISH-BLACK SLING ON IT. The rifle was between some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was found was 1:22 pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from the chamber. I then went back to the office after this.
>
> Seymour Weitzman
>
> (EMPHASIS ADDED) (Signature)
>
> 1. THIS STATEMENT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM THAT WEITZMAN ONLY HAD A "GLIMPSE" OF THE WEAPON. (Does that description sound like nothing more than just a "GLIMPSE"?
>
> 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING THAT HE WAS FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR A WHILE.
>
> 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBORATION FOR WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S AFFIDAVIT (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What appeared to be a 7.65 Mauser with a telescopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like the rifle they reportedly found?)
>
> 4. FOR MORE CORROBORATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65MAUSERWITHA TELESCOPIC SITE."
>
> 5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65 MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.
>
> BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
>
> BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.
>
> BALL: Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
>
> BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This Is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
>
> BALL: Thank you.
>
> THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very helpful.
>
> OMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!
>
> While we're on the subject of omissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg. 754 of Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.
>
> "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of the Depository Building ?"
>
> "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)
>

> ===========================================================================­=
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1175890919.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[tomnln]

If you wanna address Boone/Bowers, feel free to do so toad.

You're already proven to be a LIAR HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

3rd item down from top.

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1175897492....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

[Ben Holmes]

In article <1175875198....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.

Vaughan says...
>
>On Apr 6, 10:28 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> In article <1175865380.960278.305...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
>> Vaughan says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 5, 10:41 pm, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Apr 5, 7:27 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > H-h-huh?????
>>
>> >> Engish your second language, perhaps?
>>
>> >Hillarious, coming on the heels of your "Only you can INTERUPT the
>> >correct
>> >way.", when you quite obvioulsy should meant to use the word
>> >"INTERPRET".
>>
>>Looks like Toddy is trying out for the part as a clown ... I thought Bud already
>>had that one locked down. When you attempt to insult someone for poor spelling
>> or grammar, you should be careful to check your own.
>
>
>Ben,
>
>The issue isn't the simple typo of an extra "l' here and there

So you argue quality rather than quantity.

Correct spelling is 'correct spelling'... there isn't any gray area...

>(I make little typos all the time, and readily admit it!).

"People who live in Glass houses..." doesn't come to mind?

>Rather, it's the misuse of an entire word!
>
>Funny that a clown like you didn't see that.

Funny that a coward like you still refuses to respond to the "FBI Intimidation"
post that I've posted a dozen times or more...

Cat got your tongue?

>Todd

[tomnln]

Boone starts with a "B"
Bowers starts with a "B"

they are NOT the same person toad.

You were Proven a LIAR HERE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
3rd feature from the top.

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1175878846.0...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[tomnln]

STOP needing me to do your esearch for you LIAR.

HERE>>>

 

   FINDING THE RIFLE…

   The Warren Report tells us on page 645:

   Speculation:-The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository was identified as a 7.65 Mauser by the man who found it, Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman.

 Commission finding:-Weitzman, the original source of the speculation that the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon. Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it at close range. He had little more than a glimpse of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German bolt-type rifle similar in appearance to the Manlicher-Carcano. Police laboratory technicians subsequently arrived and correctly identified the weapon as a 6.5 Italian rifle.

 

 Pretty simple in and of itself. But as I told you earlier the WR consists of 888 pages of "conclusions" based on 26 Volumes of Testimony and Exhibits. And they were very selective in what they based their conclusions on. As stated above: Weitzman simply made a mistake. 

 

 Volume XXIV Pg. 228 contains Weitzman's actual written statement dated 11/23/63. (This is what he reported.)

  "Yesterday November 22, 1963 I was standing on the corner of Main and Houston, and as the President passed and made his turn going west towards Stemmens, I walked casually around. At this time my partner was behind me and asked me something. I looked back at him and heard 3 shots. I ran in a northwest direction and scaled a fence towards where we thought the shots came from. Then someone said they thought the shots came from the old Texas Building . I immediately ran to the old Texas Building and started looking inside. At this time Captain Fritz arrived and ordered all of the sixth floor sealed off and searched. I was working with Deputy S. Boone of the Sheriff's Department and helping in the search. We were in the northwest corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted the rifle about the same time. THE RIFLE WAS A 7.65 MAUSER BOLT ACTION EQUIPPED WITH A 4/18 SCOPE, A THICK LEATHER BROWNISH-BLACK SLING ON IT. The rifle was between some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was found was 1:22 pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from the chamber. I then went back to the office after this.

                                     Seymour Weitzman

  (EMPHASIS ADDED)                     (Signature)  

 

 

 1. THIS STATEMENT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE COMMISSION'S CLAIM THAT WEITZMAN ONLY HAD A "GLIMPSE" OF THE WEAPON. (Does that  description sound like nothing more than just a "GLIMPSE"?

 2. THE COMMISSION DIDN'T GIVE WEITZMAN THE CREDIT DUE HIM WHEN IT NEGLECTED TO QUOTE HIS TESTIMONY IN VOLUME VII PG. 108 STATING THAT HE WAS FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH RIFLES BECAUSE HE OWNED A  SPORTING GOODS BUSINESS FOR A WHILE.

 

 3. THE COMMISSION SKILLFULLY FAILED TO MENTION CORROBORATION FOR              WEITZMAN'S OBSERVATION IN THE FORM OF DEPUTY SHERIFF BOONE'S                AFFIDAVIT (Decker Exhibit 5323 Volume XIX pgs. 508-9) " What  appeared to be a 7.65 Mauser with a telescopic site. The rifle had what appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts." (Does that sound like the rifle they reportedly found?)

4. FOR MORE CORROBORATION BOONE HAS A SHORTER REPORT ON PG. 507 OF THE SAME VOLUME. BUT STILL DESCRIBING A "7.65MAUSERWITHA TELESCOPIC SITE."

5. THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE RIFLE FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR AS A 7.65 MAUSER "BY CAPTAIN FRITZ" IS FURTHER EVIDENCED IN THE TESTIMONY OF  DEPUTY BOONE IN VOLUME III Pg. 295.

         BALL: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to  this rifle as a Mauser that  day?

        BOONE: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was a 7.65  Mauser.

       BALL: Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?

       BOONE: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it  was, he said that is what it looks like. This Is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting  ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.

      BALL: Thank you.

      THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Sheriff. You have been very helpful.

 

  OMITTING THESE FACTS MAKES IT A LOT EASIER TO DISMISS THE REPORT OF   WEITZMAN AS JUST A MISTAKE!

 

 While we're on the subject of omissions, take a look at CE #2143 on pg. 754 of  Volume XXIV It's a press conference with Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry on Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963.

   "Q. What is the name of the rifle that was found in the sixth floor of the Depository Building ?"

   "Curry. That was__" (That's where CE #2143 ENDS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1175882430.7...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[tomnln]

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm

Read it & Weep Criminal.

WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

3rd feature from the top.

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175890919.0...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

[tomnln]

Hehehehehehehe

 

"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message news:JpyRh.374967$Ju2.2...@newsfe16.lga...

[tomnln]

Coward;
If you wanna make a statement about Boone regarding Bowers, YOU make it.

"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1175897492....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

[Martin Shackelford]

I have long criticized John McAdams' tendency to cite his own website as
"proof" of his assertions.
You seem to be wedded to the same approach.

Martin

"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:jUuRh.10682$YJ4....@newsfe23.lga...

[Todd W. Vaughan]

On Apr 6, 8:49 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1175875198.254367.38...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.

> Vaughan says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 6, 10:28 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> >> In article <1175865380.960278.305...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> >> Vaughan says...
>
> >> >On Apr 5, 10:41 pm, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Apr 5, 7:27 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > H-h-huh?????
>
> >> >> Engish your second language, perhaps?
>
> >> >Hillarious, coming on the heels of your "Only you can INTERUPT the
> >> >correct
> >> >way.", when you quite obvioulsy should meant to use the word
> >> >"INTERPRET".
>
> >>Looks like Toddy is trying out for the part as a clown ... I thought Bud already
> >>had that one locked down. When you attempt to insult someone for poor spelling
> >> or grammar, you should be careful to check your own.
>
> >Ben,
>
> >The issue isn't the simple typo of an extra "l' here and there
>
> So you argue quality rather than quantity.

Depends on the situation.

>
> Correct spelling is 'correct spelling'... there isn't any gray area...

Yep. But keyboard entry typos happen all the time and are not really
an accurate barometer of someone's ability, or lack thereof, to spell.

>
> >(I make little typos all the time, and readily admit it!).
>
> "People who live in Glass houses..." doesn't come to mind?

Why did you capitalize the "g" in the word "glass"?

>
> >Rather, it's the misuse of an entire word!
>
> >Funny that a clown like you didn't see that.
>
> Funny that a coward like you still refuses to respond to the "FBI Intimidation"
> post that I've posted a dozen times or more...

What, you check your patience at the door on the way out of the dojo?

>
> Cat got your tongue?

Does it look like it?

>
>
>
> >Todd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[tomnln]

My website contains Official Records you WCR Apologist.

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:CZIRh.12743$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

[Martin Shackelford]

YOU are the one relying on the FBI and Warren Commission--calling me a WC
apologist is just absurd.

Martin

"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:GfPRh.64467$mJ1....@newsfe22.lga...

[cdddraftsman]

Who would you believe ? McAdam's or... hahaha ... Rossley ? Would
you believe the number one website on the JFK Assassination in the
world , because it has integrity , doesn't jump to conclusions , isn't
selective in what it presents as evidence , doesn't have a agenda ! ,
doesn't make a ' Tempest in a Teapot ' upon
a ' Mountain of Unfounded Speculation ' , doesn't mis-use and mis-
handle data , hasn't hi-jacked this assassination for purposes of self
aggrandizement and personal profit ......

Or

Hahahahah ! Tom Rossley's illiterate boneheaded web site , that
defies the laws of logic , as well as forensics , ballistics and
medical knowledge . Where every word spoken detracts from the sum
total of mans knowledge . Where gargling from the fountain of
knowledge is encouraged . Where stupidity is considered a virtue . On
the positive side he does have a excellent section on the use of bogus
firearns factoids for use in deceiving people while perpetraiting JFK
Assassination Hoaxes .

The choice is yours . I had already made up my mind years ago
before I had heard of either of these two . The shear ignorance of the
first conspiracy writers convinced me that there was indeed a
conspiracy going on and that the prognosticators of conspiracy were
indeed the ones they themselves were looking for in regards to ' Who
Killed JFK ' .

By instilling in others falsehoods , urban legends and out and
out Big Whoppers they where indeed commiting a second murder of JFK by
being disgraceful to his memory and proving to all , that to them his
death was a joke to be profited upon by any means available ,
including sedition , co-conspiring and out right treason against the
country they live in ........................ml

On Apr 7, 9:01 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> My website contains Official Records you WCR Apologist.
>

> "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

>
> news:CZIRh.12743$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> >I have long criticized John McAdams' tendency to cite his own website as
> >"proof" of his assertions.
> > You seem to be wedded to the same approach.
>
> > Martin
>
> > "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:jUuRh.10682$YJ4....@newsfe23.lga...
> >> WHO is toad vaughan?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>

> >> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> >>news:1175875198....@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Apr 6, 10:28 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> >>>> In article <1175865380.960278.305...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Todd W.
> >>>> Vaughan says...
>
> >>>> >On Apr 5, 10:41 pm, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> On Apr 5, 7:27 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> >> > H-h-huh?????
>
> >>>> >> Engish your second language, perhaps?
>
> >>>> >Hillarious, coming on the heels of your "Only you can INTERUPT the
> >>>> >correct
> >>>> >way.", when you quite obvioulsy should meant to use the word
> >>>> >"INTERPRET".
>
> >>>> Looks like Toddy is trying out for the part as a clown ... I thought
> >>>> Bud already
> >>>> had that one locked down. When you attempt to insult someone for poor
> >>>> spelling
> >>>> or grammar, you should be careful to check your own.
>
> >>> Ben,
>
> >>> The issue isn't the simple typo of an extra "l' here and there (I make
> >>> little typos all the time, and readily admit it!). Rather, it's the
> >>> misuse of an entire word!
>
> >>> Funny that a clown like you didn't see that.
>

[tomnln]

Bercause you "Snipped" the subject;

Lemmee Re-Post the subject matter AGAIN;

An Official FBI Report stated that Billy Nolan Lovelady wore a "short
sleeved shirt
on 11/22/63 with Broad red/white stripes.

The FBI even supplied photos of Lovelady in that shirt.

Found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm

You argue like a little girl Marsh.

You're a WCR Apologist.

"Martin Shackelford" <msh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:Z1gSh.13092$JZ3....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...

[tomnln]

My website consists of "Official Reoords" of the WCR/26 Volumes.

McAdams website consists of "Opinions" based on "Unofficial Claims"

Further, McAdams is a Discredited Liar who sends adversaries computer
Viruses.

Found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm

The old addage is TRUE;

"Birds of a feather, Stick together".

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1176084472.6...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

[Ben Holmes]

On 7 Apr 2007 07:09:59 -0700, "Todd W. Vaughan"

And, here we are... years later... still waiting for **ANY** believer
to publicly acknowledge the consilience of evidence for official
intimidation in this case.

[Bud]

None established, lurkers. It is a begged question.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2018 14:34:33 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

You're lying again, dufus.

[Bud]

Ad hominem when he should be establishing this "official intimidation", lurkers.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:28:31 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

You're lying again, dufus. The **EVIDENCE** for official intimidation
has been listed or cited time and time again.

You simply evade and run away time after time.

And still - not a *SINGLE* believer honest enough to acknowledge the